Knowing that if I lose my job and my child gets sick that I would lose my home and face bankruptcy is just motivation for me to work harder. Enjoy your third-world healthcare you Aussie bitches.

/sarcasm, I hope

Would losing your job immediately put you into the "poor" category where you you can get the government option for free under Obama's original plan? (Not sure where we are at this point with the news of the last few days). I think you'd still be shelling out for insurance out-of-pocket if you lost your job (and possibly before, if your job dropped healthcare as a benefit. Obama recently admitted that when he said, "if you like your current plan you can keep it", isn't literal, as in, the government won't make you switch, but he can't do anything to keep private companies from dropping insurance and making people pay for the "public option", which remember, is promised to be self sufficient, funded by premiums from the middle class that will pay for it.)

There's no "free health care for everyone" on the table. Even our administration apparently realizes that's not possible yet. The comparisons with Austrialia/U.K. aren't relevant because of that difference, but especially when we even now spend 2.5 times more on health care per capita than those countries do. No one's sure what that disparity would be if we just went to their identical system, but I think it's safe to say it would be many, many, many times more. Would Australia/UK still love their health care if they had to pay triple their taxes for the same or less quality of care?

Things are more expensive in America, for the federal government, than other countries. I'm not sure exactly why, but it definitely goes beyond health care.

There's a decent chance the "public option" would have been somewhat cheaper, and it might help to bring the cost of private insurance down (that 1-2 combo is probably the most beneficial part of the plan), Democrats are being just as dishonest as Republicans if they push this as some kind of Europe-like universal plan, because it's not.

And I used to believe that Americans had the irony bone removed at birth :) (possibly too expensive? ;) )

I think I finally got my answer as to why the Democrats just don't go ahead and pass this bill through if they believe it to be best for the country. It appears at this point that even the Democrats can't decide on what they want at this point. They are their own worst enemy right now.

White House's Mixed Messages On "Public Option"

Howard Dean On Public Option: "You Can't Really Do Health Reform Without It"

I'd hope that through compromise there would certainly be some facet of AFFORDABLE health care coverage for those who lose their employer subsidized insurance. I'd point back to my "millions of people' post as a burden we should not have to carry on our shoulders from birth to grave.

Good for Dean. I guess it's easy to talk when you're on the outside, but I have the sense that he's a little more genuine than Obama when it comes to the Democratic ideals. He wasn't as smooth on the mic though, so he didn't work out.

It's taken you this long to realize that Democrats don't all have the same set of priorities?

Dean also put forth what is my biggest fear reinforced by Dick Armey's line today in regards to the possibility that GOP doesn't want compromise, period. That sucks for America.

The Dems being obsessed with having a unified front is exactly what this country doesn't need. I love that there's more than 2 strict ideas floating around now (or really, 1 strict idea and one party just attacking it).

I think there are multiple bills being talked about {shrug}

Is today Obvious Day or something? Of course the bulk of GOP elected officials don't want a compromise. In a two party system the opposition benefits most greatly when the majority is ineffective. Sometimes that's overcome by a strong desire for reform(see NCLB), but as long as the media doesn't start blaming the minority for inaction there's very little reason for them to sacrifice such an obvious political win.

edit: That came out bitchier than I intended, but it's frustrating that there's even discussion as to whether the GOP is negotiating in good faith. Grassley has stated repeatedly that he doesn't want anything to pass.

except for the welfare of the country and constituents which in most cases comes from compromise from all involved.

In this instance, this isn't one of those cases so we're probably good to go ;)
(I'm actually not kidding but the smiley should clarify that this particular comment is just a throwaway line for a possible giggle, not some jumping off point for debate)

In a related aside, it's actually kind of comforting to know that I don't have to worry much about my Rep. (Broun) getting into compromise mode. Saves me some worry as well as saves me from feeling compelled to spend much time reminding him that's not what he was elected to do.

LOL

To be honest, I'm not sure anymore. It seems to morph day by day.

I've always been a proponent of the single-payer plan, because I've lived several years in a country that had one and I just think it's overwhelmingly the better way to provide health care to a nation. Better and, generally, more cost-effective.

I think the key, root problem in the U.S. system is the risk to ordinary people of extraordinary consequences. Pre-existing conditions meaning you can't get insured for something and you go bankrupt. Coverage loopholes meaning the insurance company ends up not paying for something and you go bankrupt. Very high deductibles for certain "unlikely" things that then show up and you go bankrupt. Whole groups of people who don't qualify for Medicaid but can't afford good insurance and run a daily risk of incurring a bill that causes them to go bankrupt. Etc....

I'm not really sure health insurance should be private, honestly. Unlike, say, auto or home insurance, where we pay against the potentially-zero possibility of an expensive event, I think what most people think they want out of health insurance is a vehicle that both spreads your outlay of money out to a predictable level (i.e. you pay a couple hundred a month so that, among other things, you don't have a bill for $20,000 when your baby is born) and also acts as a buffer against catastrophic events.


These are fine but I'm sure most small business owners would prefer an option where they don't have to pay for health care at all. Imagine all the good workers small businesses lose out on because they can't provide good health care now?


I like this too. But if you're going to start off in this direction, why not go single-payer, as that's essentially what you're describing?


Oh heck yes. Agreed 100%.


As I've stated before, this simply isn't true.


I can best speak for the pharma industry, where I have some experience. A lot of the more cutting-edge drugs (i.e. new approaches to medical problems, not incremental improvements of current treatments) are primarily produced in Europe because of the superior support EU member states provide for various types of R&D plus, critically, extensive clinical trials. For instance, much of the H1N1 vaccine development is being conducted in Europe at the moment for these very reasons.

Also note that the big pharma companies you know (Pfizer, GSK, Bayer, etc...) typically don't develop a lot of "breakthrough" drugs these days, in-house. They'll do increments of their blockbusters, but rely on acquisitions of small startups who happen upon pot-of-gold breakthrough drugs. This process operates a lot like the dot-coms did. Some guys will spend their own money (or some grant money as well) to try and find a cure for, say, the common cold. Now 90% of the time they're going to fail, but a group that comes up with a good treatment will then get bought by a big pharma after a bidding war and they'll all be able to retire.

From what I've seen, these small startups crop up all over the place, primarily in North American and Europe, but also in Aus/NZ, India, Japan, and some in South America. And of course they're bought by big pharmas who exist anywhere (but typically in the U.S. and Europe).

If Big Pharma, for whatever reason, suddenly has less money for Acquisitions (a budget expenditure typically far more reliably affected by profit margins than general R&D) then the result is likely to be that the purchase price in these bidding wars will be lower. But I very much doubt it will be low enough to keep these small startups from still trying to strike it rich, especially when in many cases part of their research will still be funded by government grants (moreso in Europe).


You seem to be painting a picture that suddenly all the world's major paying markets for drugs will start buying drugs for cost only. That doesn't happen now, and it seems unlikely, to be honest.


That's not my experience, to be honest. Acquisition dollars go down before R&D ones do, but both after the organization finds savings elsewhere (administration, marketing, IT, salaries, etc...).


The NHS is a terrible example, to be honest. The Thatcher/Major governments spent almost 20 years finding ways to subtly dismantle the NHS and the ensuring Labour government never took the time to do a root-and-branch reform of the system to recover from that, so it's limped on in a sort of half-assed nature since then.

Having said that, the quality of care I received from the NHS when I lived there in the mid/late-90s was just as good as the very good PPO plan I have in the U.S. now, which about a billion times less paperwork.


The Congressional Dems are the U.N. of American politics.

Interesting comment in this article. James Carville actually suggested that the Dems let the Republicans kill health care to save face and perhaps gain a minor political advantage since it doesn't appear that the Democrats will be able to construct a bill that they all agree on.

Health concession fuels blowback - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

I'd pay good money to see Cynthia McKinney and Tom DeLay dancing together.

Okay, maybe I wouldn't pay... but I'd probably watch it on YouTube.

'since it doesnt appear that both sides will be able to construct a bill together that will help achieve the reform a vast majority of Americans want'

Not going to work this time. The Dems could say it before when Bush was in office and/or they didn't have power. Kind of tough to say the Republicans stopped your plan when you have massive majorities in both the Senate and House, along with a Democratic President. They can't keep blaming Republicans forever.

It's just that you've railed against public options. You've stated how horrible other countries have it. The wait times, the costs, etc. Then you say you want 50% of our country to be under it. If the private way is so much better, shouldn't we want everyone to enjoy the vast benefits you have touted?

I'd agree. They've gone too far down this path to back down now and blame the Republicans. The Democrats have to continue to fight this out within their own ranks to make it work.

right the GOP have had nothing to do with where we are today.

Still waving the party flag? They failed you.

The major difference between the parties is the Republicans fall in line much easier. Bush wanted something and it got done. Didn't matter if it was a moderate or conservative Republican. They cut deals, made concessions with one another, but ultimately got shit done.

They also weren't so fucking disorganized. I can't remember them ever putting out a bill that hadn't been vetted by members of Congress beforehand and they knew what the reaction would be from their own party. Seems amateurish to put out a bill and then have your own party shit all over it. Why wasn't a lot of this stuff discussed in private beforehand? Reminds me of the first TARP that got rejected in the House. Can't fathom that happening under a Republican controlled House.

Sadly, the Democrats need someone with more power at the top of the Senate and House. A guy like Tom Delay who would just get shit through one way or another. Not sure who in the party has that kind of weight though. A Jim Webb would be good at it for the Senate while someone like Dave Obey would be a great leader in the House.

The same can be said about Sam Brownback and Olympia Snowe. Our two party system is just fucked up and unfortunately we have no way out of it. With that said, if you want to get shit done, you have to play within those rules and the Democrats can't seem to figure it out.

The Democratic party havnt failed me or you, NOTHING has been put to a vote yet! Jesus, this isnt about winning and losing.

WTF?! There was little to no attempts to filibuster the stimulus bill. McConnell spoke aloud about it, but there was no way in Hell he was going to get 41 votes to stall the bill.

Well, imagine if Tip O'Neill was Speaker. He wouldn't stand for this crap.

Actually, imagine if Rahm was Speaker, as was his original ambition. LOL :D

Rahm would have been perfect for that role.

What? Seniors and uninsured poverty/kids under the age of 18 are 50% of the population? This must be the dust bowl.

I'm not a fan of medicare, but I think that we should have some option for uninsured kids and seniors. Kids because it's hard for a 5-year old to fill out paperwork for insurance or find a job. Seniors because of the pre-existing conditions that will often disqualify them from current private plans (I would prefer a reform on private plans for seniors to medicare, but as I said above that ship has sailed).

Outside of Medicare (which is its own beast right now), we're talking about maybe 5-10% of the population who fall into uninsured kids or people in poverty without insurance. 80-90+% of kids have insurance from their parents and won't even need to partake in it. Plus, we already have a ton of state systems that help cover uninsured kids right now.

Setting up a federal plan to cover kids who aren't insured (very few), stipends/credits to those who can't afford coverage (poverty, small business owners, don't get it from their employer) and an extension of unemployment coverage for those who lost their jobs will be minimal cost when compared to whatever the bill of the day is in congress. The beauty of this is that only a comparative small number will be taking advantage of this plan as you either need to be an uninsured kid, in poverty, recently laid off or small business owner/hourly worker/other to qualify. Yet, it would put a dent in the number of uninsured people and give us a starting point if increasing coverage is a concern (as has been stated numerous times in this thread). After this effort, the focus can shift to improving the infrastructure and working on cost issues (which there also many simple things that can be done from opening state-to-state competition to dealing with the medical malpractice elephant to other ideas).

This won't involve massive waits or a change to the system as 80+% will still be under their same employer provided plans. It will just give options to many people who don't have any now (and some of whom will still probably not take advantage of for various reasons). There's no real government health care plan (outside of maybe the uninsured kid piece), the majority is tax credits/stipends for people to use to buy their own. The problem we have now is waiting to fix everything with a magic wand instead of taking a more measured approach and dealing with each area as its own bill/problem.

That's exactly what I am saying. Outside of Medicare (which we can't change even if we wanted) and some minor uninsured kids plans (many of which already exist), all I am doing is providing government funds to select people who simply can't afford private premiums. So, I'm basically finding a way to add them to the current private way. Again, it's not optimal, but it's the best alternative if increasing coverage is your goal.

The difference is that the republicans are split on social issues (ie abortion, gay marriage/unions and stem cells). Democrats are split on fiscal/industry issues. If you want a bill on abortion, it will sail right through for democrats. If you want a bill on tax cuts/health care reform, the republicans will be united. However, a bill on abortion would get hosed in the republican machine (depending on the scope) just as a bill on fiscal policy/health care reform will get caught in the gears of the democratic party.

There's also a lot of pressure on the clear majority (esp in a recession). It hosed the republicans in the early 90s and seems to be hammering the democrats now. Just like the republicans in 1991, the democrats can *do* whatever they want - they (esp Obama) are just smart enough to know that things aren't going to change much before the next election cycle and they will need some coverage to keep the majority. Politics isn't (and hasn't been for years) about "doing the right thing", it's about doing something that helps you keep your job.

I don't know about that. Republicans spent a shitload of money this decade and expanded socialized medicine more than Obama has. Republicans seem to be united more, but it's dependent on what the President wants. President wanted big spending and they obliged. Democrat gets in power and they're about reform.

I'd bet that seniors and kids equate well over half the health care spending in this country.

The rest of your ideas that you presented was pretty close to what Obama presented. Why are you opposed to it again?

Well, the Bush medicare bill was also a "reform", just a poorly constructed one. The problem with health care is that the democrats themselves are split when it comes to a public option. If you can't get a clear purpose on a bill within your own party, it's going to be hard to sell it to the public/other side of congress.

If Obama would have just come out in June and said "We need a bill that includes specific items X, Y and Z (ie, public option)", I think the democrats would have fallen in line. He didn't want to do that, though, because he knew the public wasn't a big fan of the public option and he didn't want to be tied to specific items in the bill (in the event they needed to be cut to land his "victory" on health care). So, while that may have been more politically expedient for Obama long term, it pretty much sunk the health care debate. These poor democratic congressmen were forced to defend every aspect of all 20 bills in congress in these town halls because they didn't know what Obama wanted in the final version (or what would be there).

Bush, for all his warts, was very specific on what he wanted (for better or worse) and that's why it was easier for republicans to fall in line. It's hard to back the president when you don't even know specifically what he wants.

The cloture vote was 60-36 with Collins, Snowe and Specter voting for, Franken unseated and a couple non-voters. The only reason McConnell couldn't get 40 votes was because of the compromise bill negotiated by the moderates.

Collins, Snowe, and Specter would have ALWAYS voted against cloture. Collins and Snowe are not the type to filibuster anything, even if they disagree.

You're not following. I would prefer a private system for seniors, but we have medicare and it's not going anywhere (I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot here). For kids, I'm in favor of a publicly sponsored option for CURRENTLY UNINSURED KIDS. That number is estimated to be about 8 million nationally. A pretty far cry from half the spending. Plus, we already have the CHIP program and numerous state-run coverage plans for kids. I'm just ensuring there are no cracks for the remaining few kids who currently can't get coverage (which is well under 8 million total).

As long as it doesn't have a public option, I'm not necessarily against it. The co-op idea by the "gang of six" appears (per the CBO) to be much more fiscally responsible and offer help in landing private options. Given the alternatives a month ago, I think it's a step in the right direction.

If by reform you mean letting drug companies pick their own price, then yes, it was reform. The Medicare was a bloated pile of shit that did nothing but make a ton of money for big Pharma. It's no secret that many of the Congressmen behind the bill went on to cushy million dollar jobs with those companies.

Obama would have been better off crafting a bill he liked and discussing it in private with the leaders in the Democratic party. Moderates and liberals alike. Get a consensus and a bill that the party would support. Then come out with a united front and 60% of Congress behind it. When you come out and put up a strong offensive, you have a better shot at winning. Bush did that with whatever he wanted passed.

Do you really think a private system works for seniors? Do you have any idea what the rates would be? You'd be looking at 70 and 80 year olds paying up to $40,000 a year in health insurance. What percent of seniors can swing that? On top of dealing with all the hassles that come with insurance companies. Considering private insurers can drop you at your renewal rate, we'd be seeing a lot of seniors with serious illnesses and no health insurance.

Private option may work for the average 18-60 year old, but over 60 it's just too much trouble. You need the rest of society pitching in to help them out. You can't honestly believe there is a way to create a private system for the elderly.

You also have this belief that everyone on insurance is somehow taken care of. Insurance is great if you don't really get sick much, but if you're unhealthy, it's a different ball game. Ask anyone who's had extended hospital stays how hard it was to get their bills paid for. Or those who needed treatments prescribed by doctors that insurance companies just didn't want to pay for. The minute you start costing the insurance company a lot of money, they turn into shitbags that are nearly impossible to work with.

Maybe so, but the cuts in the final bill were made to appease them so they would vote for cloture. The cuts didn't materialize out of thin air.

That plan didn't work so well when Clinton tried it.

I think it would still cost the government a ton, but I think private insurance companies could run health care for seniors. It would just be that a large percentage of the premiums would be paid by the gov't and there would need to be other qualifiers (restrictions on dropping and so forth). I doubt it would cost any more than what we are paying now, but it would be similar. At the end of the day, health care for seniors is always going to be expensive and Medicare isn't going anywhere. So, it's a fairly pointless debate.

The Medicare Advantage plan does essentially what you are proposing, but costs significantly more per person than Medicare.

They didn't have near the margins in the house and senate they have now. Plus, their plan was extremely unpopular. I think if Obama had come out with a specific bill he wanted in the summer, there's a strong chance it would have passed by now.

But, I think that experience Clinton had scared Obama and he was hoping he could just grease a final bill through (just on sheer numbers in congress) without ever having to stick his neck out on certain specifics.

In a broader context, I see this as a problem that will continue to pop up. You can't work multiple sides of an issue and then act surprised when a specific side is chosen for a bill and there's disagreement. Either Obama needs to set a specific agenda for what he wants congress to pass or this will keep happening again and again.

Well the private insurance industry has helped us have double the health care costs of nearly every major country in the world. Why do you have this idea that private means cheaper in health care? Especially considering these companies are relative monopolies in their regions.

Private only works in true free markets. Health care is not and the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies like it that way. What you want is a private plan in an industry that is built so these companies can't lose.

I agree that the Clinton experience has played a big part in how this was (mis)handled, but I still think it's important to point out that a public option would likely pass an up or down vote. The problem is Max Baucus and a handful of Senators that apparently won't vote for cloture.

The cuts were to get them to vote for the final bill to call it "bipartisan", NOT to get them to vote for cloture. If the later was what was intended, then I have a far lesser view of the Obama Administration's political acumen than I previous had.

It often costs more because it covers more than medicare (ie, prescription drugs, dental care, vision care and health club membership), plus there's out of network fees like normal plans (so, if your current doctor is out of network, it will cost more). That was needed in order to get people to switch from traditional medicare+medigap plans. Plus, because these plans are with companies for profit, there's more incentive to put cost and quality control measures in place, and more freedom to tie innovative care strategies to payment (ie, certain preventive measures).

For example, the Berensen and Dowd survey found that 99% of private plans used some type of disease management program in 2000, whereas CMS is considering terminating an ongoing disease management demonstration in traditional Medicare because it has been so unsuccessful. So, long term, it could end up costing less and atleast there's a reason for these plans to control cost (ie, they are for profit).

At some point in time, this country is going to have to deal with the obesity/fast food/lack of exercise culture we've created for most of the 300+ million citizens we have. If this doesn't improve, no program will make a difference.

It's amazing to me that people think that switching to a government-run single payer system with little incentive for cost control, run by people trying to stay elected in congress and covering 40+ million people more than are currently covered will somehow significantly reduce the cost for heath care.

Health care is not for healthy people, it's for sick people. And, the ugly truth is the traditional American lifestyle leads to significantly more sick people than other cultures. Add that to the problem of scope (10-times plus more people than Canada or other European countries) and you have a problem that is systemic to our culture and not just because drug companies and hospitals want to "stick it to use".

It wasn't just to get those three Republicans. Nelson, Landrieu, McCaskill and Lieberman were reluctant about one trillion also. From the Huffington Post:

I guess the bottom line is it works in other countries.

Obesity aside, we pay more for basic features. We pay more for prescriptions than just about every other country in the world. We also pay more for basic tests. MRI here can be thousands while in Japan it's under $100. Doctors, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies have created all the rules to milk the most out of the consumer in this country. Our country built our system for them, not us.

Hey, if you want to take a look at billed costs to insurance companies, I'm all for it. I think there's a lot of room there for improvement. One of the guys I work with had the option of paying $2500 cash for a procedure his dad had or see if the insurance would cover 80%. The problem was if he didn't pay cash, they would bill the insurance company $9,000 for it and he would be stuck paying what wasn't covered. The fact that the same procedure is $2500 without insurance that is $9,000 with insurance tells me there are some things that can be done here. But, I don't know that you need to switch over to a public system to deal with it.

Which country has 300 million people, with 2/3 of their adults listed as obese? If that country has a better plan, let's check it out!

Most of the time the opposite is true. The uninsured are regularly billed far more than the insured.

At least twelve people outside of Obama's event today in AZ had guns including at least one assault rifle. Will any GOP elected official dampen the increasing rage on the right?

More disappointing to me is that the GOP seems to be 'unmoved' by the talk of a compromise from the left and is, IMO, IMO, only looking for the 'win'.

I wonder if the left will try to push the 'see we tried to compromise and they didnt want to' card. sigh.

what a frigging mess *sighs*

fucking healthcare needs to be fucking fixed too. ugh

BTW, no one can argue about whether or not there is the possibility of danger or threat at the town halls now. Those pussies (/sarcasm) ought to be cancelling them when people start showing up with guns and semi automatic rifles. It's their right, and its the politicians right to avoid disaster.

Here is the article on it:

Terms of Service

I'm all for being able to bear arms and protect your home. Never understood the "manliness" of walking around with a gun though. I mean how small does your dick have to be or what kind of a pussy would you have to be in a fight to carry one around with you everyday for protection?

Outside of a few RINO's, I can't imagine any that don't want to be the target of the anger themselves nor want to put their re-election at risk.

Meanwhile, this has got to be one of the greatest pictures I've seen in my lifetime. Among my first thoughts (wrestling fans will get it) was "Why is Taz carrying a gun in Arizona".

Gives new meaning to the phrase, BEat Him if you can, survive if he lets you.

I enjoyed reading quite a few of those :)

SI

I guess we're to the point where we stop reading what each other write and stumble forward with our rally cries. I stated this new "non-public" plan is a step in the right direction and once I see more information on it - I very well may support it.

As to the question of "What would Jesus do?": I'm not a fan of a single payer plan. Numerous people in this thread have stated their desire to see a single payer plan (ie, other countries do it, why can't we?) and I have simply been responding. But I am nowhere near the health czar that you are, so maybe you can show me the virtues of a single payer system and force me to repent.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for not getting some form of health care changes passed through Congress. It's awfully hard to blame the minority opposition for the lack of action when the Democrat aren't even able to provide a unified opinion at this point.

Some Key Democrats Say Public Option is Essential to Health-Care Reform - washingtonpost.com

This is why a public option (non co-op) is necessary. Cover more people, take more advantage of economies of scale to lower costs (less then true single-payer, but a step in the right direction), and have meaningful leverage against insurance companies.


I tend to agree at least to a point. Shameful.

Hush. Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth already.

At this point, I'm not even sure the Republicans should be objecting in general. How are we to even know what they're objecting to when the Democrats aren't even sure which bill is going to be voted on? There's a wide difference between the multiple proposed bills at this point.

Whether you're for public health care or not, or whatever these people are crying about, I really wish they'd leave their guns at home. I know it's some sort of constitutional right, but there can never be anything good coming from people shouting anti-Obama chants and carrying loaded firearms. All it takes is some crazies who aren't even carrying guns to some how get a hold of these. I can't understand what would inspire somebody to bring loaded assault rifles to a presidential rally...even if you're for gun rights.

I think the Secret Service (and by extension whoever gave them the order) is being far too permissive in allowing it. They had an ex secret service guy on one of the news shows last night and he said they can basically set whatever kind of policy they want - they could extend the security perimeter out as far as they wanted and make this a non-issue by saying "no firearms - loaded or unloaded, allowed inside this perimeter" but for whatever reason they aren't.

The problem with permitting it is that they'll continue to push that envelope. I'm not sure where the line is crossed and a crackdown has to be made. Of course, they'll then raise a fuss at that point. It's similar to the Black Panthers showing up at the polling stations in Philadelphia last November. It appears the administration is willing to turn the other cheek as long as there is no physical confrontation, which I'm not a big fan of personally. I'm for the right to carry weapons, but both of these instances obviously are intimidation.

Then you haven't been paying attention. The level of anger toward government continues to rise, particularly among people who may be inclined to do something more than put slogans on protest signs.

Yesterday's Arizona event was brilliantly conceived (and contrived for that matter) and you couldn't have bought a better picture than the one I posted. From a marketing standpoint that's one of the strongest images I've seen in years.

A little grudgingly, I'll give credit to the Secret Service and/or the administration (who could definitely influence how this is handled) for exercising some restraint. If they had gone hard at those folks, it would have ensured twice as many guns show up at the next opportunity & at some point it would backfire. Both sides really played their cards pretty well.

Even if there are significant differences, there are things we can learn. There are plenty of people who spend their days studying the root causes of the health disparities in the U.S.. Other countries have modeled some of the ways we could get to better health.

Some of the differences between our country and others are the causes for health differences, some are the effects. For example, the family medicine model is proven to be more effective than a high rate of specialists visits, and most European countries feature a much higher number of family physicians than we have.

There's no reason for us not to use other countries' examples to improve our health care. It's not like we're required to copy another model to the letter.

For a site that pretty much revolves around discussions on mathematical modeling and scalability (albeit in another forum now)....

People upset with the government who bring assault rifles to a rally are the same in my book as someone who can't get a girlfriend bringing rope and chloroform to a beauty pageant.

thus you'll agree that your earlier insinuation that Congressman were simply using fear to cancel their town halls may have truly not been an excuse after all? :lol:

Being a raging pussy is one reason.

LOL... and... sigh:

eh, he has a point. Baucus is a tool of the healthcare industry and insurance groups and the fact that he's dictating this whole thing is ridiculous and is a huge fuck-up.

Grassley, one of the "Baucus 6", went on the Sunday talk shows and basically said that even if they put together a "bipartisan" agreement amongst the 6 of them, but it wasn't supported by a majority of Republicans, he'd vote against it. His own bill.

This is the game the GOP is playing on this issue, just as they have on multiple issues before. Spread disinformation, hew strictly to talking points, stoop to no level too low (i.e. armed intimidation and outright lies), and actively pretend that you're being bipartisan when you have no intention there either.

In this game Pelosi & Reid are completely out-manned, and it's showing, badly. The gloves should have been taken off a while ago.

yeah, Grassley's no saint in all this either. But man has this been bunglefucked probably beyond repair.

But once again, this 'game' the GOP is playing wouldn't mean a hill of beans if the Democrats would bother to get their own party members on the same page. The Republicans should be little more than a 'vocal minority' at this point, but the disarray in the Democrats is allowing the Republicans to look like they have some form of control when they shouldn't have any.

Both sides are trying to play politics. The Republicans aren't more evil just because they seem to be better at it.

The Republican Party has always proven itself to be good at letting the Democrats self-destruct.

Grassley's taking in just as much money as Baucus has.

amazingly I disagree and it's the exact same way I felt when the dems were the minority and got locked out. Just because the GOP is the minority doesnt, IMO, mean they shouldnt have any input or say in matters. I just wish they would be genuine in their opposition instead of viewing it as a game.

I'm not too sure how that's your interpretation of a none too subtle reminder that that the right to bear arms gives a certain amount (albeit woefully insufficient) protection against the tyranny of government but ... okay, whatever works for you I guess.

America has voted Democrat though. Shouldn't that matter at all?

How far does this logic go? If the Democrats controlled 75% of both houses, do the Republicans still have to agree with everything? What if it was 100%? What if it's 60/20/20 with the emergence of a third party. Does everyone get a say?

Of course, ideally it wouldn't be viewed as 2 parties, but 100 Senators and 435 Representatives. Those are the 535 people that matter. Most of them, as far as I understand, feel a certain way about health care, and were elected by people that feel a certain way about health care, but they have to show deference to those who weren't voted in. Which is just weird.

I think you're both 50% right. The minority should have input/say in the matter, but if they're going to treat it like a "game" and not be genuine in their opposition than the majority should have their house in order enough to basically say to the American people "look - they're not engaging in a good faith effort to have actual input they're just screwing around so we're going to pass this thing anyways."

Both at fault.

I'd say you're missing a big point here. The opposition seems quite genuine in many cases (whether the reason is highly philosophical or entirely pragmatic), it's how you effectively discomfit your opponent that's largely a game or maybe more accurately requires gamesmanship.

Good point. Probably should not have used the phrase "shouldn't have any (control)" or should have clarified that if the Democrats wanted to pass it on partisan lines, they could without concern about the minority opinion. Like I said before though, it's getting difficult to even figure out what to oppose due to the lack of a unified position by the Democrats.

If only we had a media that cared about exposing corruption and fraud and presenting facts to the American people rather than just spending all their time regurgitating press releases...

Which is absolutely hilarious given what he did to an unnamed southern university. He's basically trying to lead the charge against drug company/university conflict of interest, all while on the take from lobbyists himself.

Since when is there a need for a 'good faith effort' by anyone? Last I checked, anyone in Congress can sponsor a bill and put it up for a yea/nay vote. If it's a bill you agree with, you vote for it. If it's not, you don't vote for it. These claims that the Republicans somehow interfered with passage of Democrat-proposed legislation when they hold a wide majority aren't going to stand up at all, especially with Democrat leadership publicly feuding with each other on what should be in the bills.

You say that as though there's a significant portion of the public that is more interested in the former than the latter. There isn't.

Wrong. Yes, anyone can sponsor a bill, but not just anyone can force a vote on the bill.